Pope Benedict XVI resigned-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina has been elected

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Dark Knight said:
Some may do as you speculate, but by and large people expect something a bit closer, I think. He was pretty darn close on John Paul and Benedict, among others, which is why people think the next one is the final one. Benedict being the "benedictine" pope he spoke of.
Click to expand...

I'm sure people do expect something closer. Actually I wasn't questioning Malachy's accuracy. I just think the phrase "Peter the Roman" is so loaded with symbolism that it could be made to mean almost anybody, not necessarily that it will.

I guess we'll see if and when Isaac the Eskimo is elected Pope...

(Of course the College of Cardinals KNOWS the prophecy, so there's no way to conduct a blind test for Malachy.)
 
montana_16 said:
I didn't know that popes could resign. i thought they were there for life. Just learned something.
Click to expand...

It is rare, but not unprecedented for a pope to step down. Benedict XVI is the first since Pope Gregory XII in 1415.

Popes Who Resigned
Pontian 235
Marcellinus 308
Liberius 366
John XVIII 1009
Benedict IX 1045
Gregory VI 1046
Celestine V 1294
Gregory XII 1415
Benedict XVI 2013

A total of nine out of 265 popes have resigned. The first four are not clear from 235 to 1009. Benedict IX is known to resign. Some occurred during the Roman Empire. Interesting to note that three popes have resigned in the 11th century (1000s). Also, interesting, popes with the name Benedict and Gregory have resigned. It is reported that in 2010, that Benedict XVI was planning to resign due to health issues.

Papal resignation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benedict XVI Not the First Pope to Resign
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/papal-resignation-in-history-130211.htm

Benedict XVI had raised the possibility of resigning already in 2010, when he was interviewed for the book “Light of the World” by German journalist Peter Seewald.
 
Nova said:
I'm sure people do expect something closer. Actually I wasn't questioning Malachy's accuracy. I just think the phrase "Peter the Roman" is so loaded with symbolism that it could be made to mean almost anybody, not necessarily that it will.

I guess we'll see if and when Isaac the Eskimo is elected Pope...

(Of course the College of Cardinals KNOWS the prophecy, so there's no way to conduct a blind test for Malachy.)
Click to expand...

What have you heard about Issac the Eskimo?
 
Yoda said:
A sign from God? Lighting strikes the basilica of St.Peter's dome earlier this evening during a storm that struck Rome on the same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-longer-strength-carry-on.html#ixzz2Kdmy62HB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


article-2276884-17841A9A000005DC-22_634x815.jpg
Click to expand...

Cool photo, and interesting timing to say the least.
 
Sonya610 said:
Apparently it has been 600 years since the last Pope resigned.
Click to expand...

The last pope who resigned willingly was immediately imprisoned by his sucessor and later died mysteriously from a hole in the head.
 
I don't want to seem to be shifting sides. Do I think it's possible that the Pope didn't think he should lead the Church at a time when he himself may be at the center of a worldwide crisis? Yes.

But we should also remember that medical science has predictive powers that were unknown even 50 years ago. Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases that affect the brain or nervous system can be predicted now; it shouldn't surprise us to see more Popes resign in the future (barring Malichy). An ailing pontiff has so much more information than his predecessors.

And it isn't either or. The Pope may have resigned both because his health is a problem AND because he puts the Church in an awkward position if he is still in office during coming litigation, for example.
 
Nova said:
I have no opinion but, no, you are not the only one. On some message boards there is speculation that Ratzinger needed to remove himself because he will be a plaintiff in future law suits against the church.

Again, I don't know enough about church legal issues to have an opinion and Dark Knight's argument that an able pontiff wouldn't quit just before Easter is very convincing.

Regarding the speculation, however, HBO currently has available on demand a documentary called MEA MAXIMA CULPA: SILENCE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD about the long-term molestation of students at a school for the deaf in the American Midwest. The film traces the responsibility up through the channels of the church squarely to Ratzinger's office before he became Pope. The film is riveting and horrifying, IMO.

Here's a discussion of the resignation announcement with the film's director:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/mea-maxima-culpa-director-alex-gibney-praises-pope-170013599.html
Click to expand...

The Vatican is an independent country, as head of state he would have had sovereign immunity from anything like that.
 
Tugela said:
The Vatican is an independent country, as head of state he would have had sovereign immunity from anything like that.
Click to expand...

I am NOT an expert on international law; however, based on the documentary I saw last night:

a. Ratzinger was put in charge of all sexual abuse claims against the church from 2001 until he became Pope in 2005. He may be liable (either criminally or civilly) for his actions before he became Pope.

b. Even a head of state can be charged with crimes against humanity before the World Court. Some have suggested Ratzinger should be pursued in that venue.

c. Even more radically, others have argued that whether the Pontiff is a true head of state is a legal question for a court to decide. Vatican City has no native population or permanent citizens, no standing army, no diplomatic service. Its establishment as an independent nation-state was a devil's bargain between the church and the Fascists under Mussolini.

At least some legal authorities reportedly believe it is time to stop allowing the Vatican to hide behind the quaint fiction that it is a sovereign country.

***

I want to reiterate that I am not agitating for any of the above positions. I'm just repeating what I have learned of late.
 
Tugela said:
The Vatican is an independent country, as head of state he would have had sovereign immunity from anything like that.
Click to expand...

But imagine the embarrassment if the Pope were hauled into court and had to plead the special case that he is not innocent but "exempt" because of a technicality!
 
From the AP: Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson of Ghana is one of the highest-ranking African cardinals at the Vatican, currently heading the Vatican's office for justice and peace. But he is prone to gaffes, though, and is considered something of a wild card.
 
Nova said:
But imagine the embarrassment if the Pope were hauled into court and had to plead the special case that he is not innocent but "exempt" because of a technicality!
Click to expand...

I don't see how the embarrassment would be any less if a former Pope were hauled into court, so I don't think that theory holds water.
 
Nova said:
I am NOT an expert on international law; however, based on the documentary I saw last night:

a. Ratzinger was put in charge of all sexual abuse claims against the church from 2001 until he became Pope in 2005. He may be liable (either criminally or civilly) for his actions before he became Pope.

b. Even a head of state can be charged with crimes against humanity before the World Court. Some have suggested Ratzinger should be pursued in that venue.

c. Even more radically, others have argued that whether the Pontiff is a true head of state is a legal question for a court to decide. Vatican City has no native population or permanent citizens, no standing army, no diplomatic service. Its establishment as an independent nation-state was a devil's bargain between the church and the Fascists under Mussolini.

At least some legal authorities reportedly believe it is time to stop allowing the Vatican to hide behind the quaint fiction that it is a sovereign country.

***

I want to reiterate that I am not agitating for any of the above positions. I'm just repeating what I have learned of late.
Click to expand...

The Vatican has both a standing army and a diplomatic service. As for the "devil's bargain", aka an internationally recognised treaty, it allowed the Italian church to retain at least some measure of independence from Mussolini's foul regime, and was a lot more honourable than the actions of the German church at the time.
 
Gardenlady said:
Don't be worried, gracenote. The church has been around for 2000 years, and despite the corrupt clowns that seem to run it sometimes, it still hasn't managed to self destruct (or be destructed) yet. :)

I'm pretty amused, personally, thinking of how Benedict managed to keep such a secret in such a gossip- and politicking- heavy environment as the Vatican is known to be!
Click to expand...

Thank you, Gardenlady (love your name!) I feel a little better. It was just a shock to wake up to. Very unusual.
 
Nova said:
But imagine the embarrassment if the Pope were hauled into court and had to plead the special case that he is not innocent but "exempt" because of a technicality!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't happen. I think you would need to get state department permission to even proceed in a case like that, and they would not give it.
 
Nova said:
I am NOT an expert on international law; however, based on the documentary I saw last night:

a. Ratzinger was put in charge of all sexual abuse claims against the church from 2001 until he became Pope in 2005. He may be liable (either criminally or civilly) for his actions before he became Pope.

b. Even a head of state can be charged with crimes against humanity before the World Court. Some have suggested Ratzinger should be pursued in that venue.

c. Even more radically, others have argued that whether the Pontiff is a true head of state is a legal question for a court to decide. Vatican City has no native population or permanent citizens, no standing army, no diplomatic service. Its establishment as an independent nation-state was a devil's bargain between the church and the Fascists under Mussolini.

At least some legal authorities reportedly believe it is time to stop allowing the Vatican to hide behind the quaint fiction that it is a sovereign country.

***

I want to reiterate that I am not agitating for any of the above positions. I'm just repeating what I have learned of late.
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant. What matters is if the US recognizes the Vatican as a country, and it does. That affords the Vatican sovereign immunity. A civil court cannot overturn that.
 
February 12, 2013 at 11:13 am

Retiring Pope Benedict XVI in uncharted territory

By Nicole Winfield
Associated Press

Vatican City — For months, construction crews have been renovating a four-story building attached to a monastery on the northern edge of the Vatican gardens where nuns would live for a few years at a time in cloister.

Only a handful of Vatican officials knew it would one day be Pope Benedict XVI's retirement home.

On Tuesday, construction materials littered the front lawn of the house and plastic tubing snaked down from the top floor to a cargo container. The restoration has become even more critical following Benedict's stunning announcement that he will resign Feb. 28 and live his remaining days here in prayer...

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130212/LIFESTYLE04/302120400#ixzz2KhtFL9Oy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 1,784 (members: 80, guests: 1,704)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
1,704
Total visitors
1,784
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,386
Messages
18,107,915
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top